Amendment 1

This amendment raises the homestead property tax exemption by $25,000 for homes worth more than $100,000. That would exempt the value between $100,000 and $125,000 of a home that serves as the owner's primary residence.

Currently, there are two other homestead exemptions: for the first $25,000 of the assessed property value and for the value between $50,000 and $75,000.

Why: "Amendments 1 and 2 are a couple of tax proposals sponsored by the Legislature, because who doesn’t like tax cuts? The latter is preferable to the former, but neither rise to constitutional amendment worthiness."

Why: "This would benefit only 22 percent of all Brevard County properties and 48 percent of properties that have a homestead exemption. The county alone — not counting municipalities — would lose $12 million in revenue that may result in service cuts. This is unfair to non-homestead properties that will likely have to pay more to offset such cuts."

Why: Florida already offers generous homestead exemptions totaling $50,000 for property owners who make their full-time residence here. Adding another $25,000 exemption would put pressure on local governments to cut services or raise property tax rates to make up for lost revenue.

Why: "It could cut an average home owner's property taxes about $300 a year. But the negatives out weigh the potential benefits. About 40 percent of the homes in Florida are not eligible for the extra exemption because their assessed value is less than $100,000. The exemption also will mean much less revenue for local governments."

Amendment 2

This proposal permanently places a 10-percent cap on the annual increase of non-homestead property tax assessments. This amendment wouldn't change current law, but it puts protections in place so exorbitant increases don't impact renters, business owners and consumers.

What owners of non-homestead properties face, should the amendment fail, is paying taxes on the full value of properties, beginning in January 2019. This could translate into higher costs for renters, financial burdens for those on fixed incomes, increased costs for consumers who shop at businesses and more costs for those who own undeveloped land. Projections show a potential tax increase of about $700 million each year.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: "Amendments 1 and 2 are a couple of tax proposals sponsored by the Legislature, because who doesn’t like tax cuts? The latter is preferable to the former, but neither rise to constitutional amendment worthiness."

Why: "Non-homestead properties, in particular commercial ones, already pay more taxes than homestead ones. If Amendment 1 passes — and it probably will because voters want to give themselves a tax cut — local governments might need to make up for lost revenue by taxing non-homestead properties even more."

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: YES

Why: "While our board has misgivings about the permanent nature of this extension, we recognize the burden it would impose on renters and small-business owners if the 10-percent cap is allowed to expire."

Naples Daily News: YES

Why: "Homesteaded properties benefit from a maximum 3 percent year-to-year assessment increase, which can be even lower if the change in the Consumer Price Index is less. In a region where high housing costs are a concern for the workforce and seniors, we don’t need soaring property tax bills from spiraling assessments to cause landlords to increase rents. Businesses would pass their higher costs to consumers."

Fort Myers News-Press: YES

Why: "This amendment doesn't change current law, but it places a 10-percent cap on the annual increase of non-homestead property tax assessments. That helps renters, business owners and consumers because a no vote means owners of these properties could see taxes on the full value of properties. That translates into higher costs for renters, business owners and their consumers, and hurts those on fixed incomes."

Amendment 3

This amendment gives voters the exclusive right to decide whether a new casino can open in the state. It takes that right away from the Florida Legislature, which has failed in recent years to reach an agreement on the issue.

The amendment would categorize card games, casino games and slot machines as casino gambling, and require anyone who wanted to build a casino to get hundreds of thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot and then hope for voter approval. This would make it more difficult for any dog track or horse track wishing to expand its gaming to do so.

Currently, the Seminole tribal compact, agreed to in 2015 with the state, gives casinos exclusive rights to operate craps, roulette, black jack at its five properties.

The amendment was placed on the ballot after the anti-gambling expansion group Voters in Charge collected more than 766,000 validated voters' signatures.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: "Amendment 3 purports to put citizens in charge of any expansion of gambling, but it’s mainly a sop to Disney, which opposes all casino gambling, and the Seminole Tribe, which doesn’t want any competition for its gambling operations."

Why: "On the surface, Amendment 3 empowers voters. But because the referendum would be statewide, voters in one part of the state would decide whether a gaming facility can open somewhere else. This would benefit larger companies that have the resources to gather hundreds of thousands signature needed for a referendum."

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: "On the surface, Amendment 3 empowers voters. But because the amendment would be statewide, voters in one part of the state would decide whether a gaming facility could open somewhere else. This would benefit larger companies that have the resources to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures needed for a referendum."

Why: "Two important principles we embrace seemingly come into conflict in this amendment: home rule and the right of residents to decide their destiny by voting. A deeper look at the amendment, however, shows the tenets of home rule and voters’ rights are in alignment, so we urge a “no” vote on this amendment heavily lobbied by Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Disney certainly has reasons to want to rein in where visitors’ entertainment dollars will go, and the tribe that operates a half-dozen Florida casinos, including one in Immokalee, has reasons to want to limit competition. To us, home rule means it’s a local decision. Where this amendment fails is that it doesn’t give local control over whether there are casinos to local voters."

Fort Meyers News-Press: NO

Why: On the surface that seems like a great idea, allowing voters to decide who gets new gambling establishments in their communities. But it's complicated. In order to get a new casino, complete with card games, casino games and slot machines, a business would need to get hundreds of thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot and then hope for voter approval. This would make it more difficult for any parimutuel facility, like the Naples-Fort Myers Greyhound Racing and Poker facility, or horse track wishing to expand its gaming, to do so. This amendment would not keep the Bonita track from getting slot machines based on a referendum approved by voters in 2012. That issue remains tied up in the courts.

Amendment 4

The amendment restores voting rights to former felons who served their sentence, including parole and probation, with the exception of those convicted of murder and sexual offenses. Currently, former felons must wait at least 5 years after completing their sentences to ask the Florida Clemency Board, made up by the governor and the Cabinet, to restore their rights.

A U.S. district judge found Florida's current system arbitrary and unconstitutional in March, and the case is under appeal. If passed, Amendment 4 would impact 1.5 million Floridians. Florida is one of four states that disenfranchises former felons permanently.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: YES

Why: We see no public benefit in forever forbidding felons to vote, and Florida is one of only four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who fulfilled their sentences.

If we want ex-offenders to turn their lives around, we should do our best to let them fully return to society. If they reoffend and go back inside, they won’t be voting — but as long as they’re rebuilding their lives, why not let them have full citizenship?

Why: If the point of sentencing is to impose adequate punishment for a crime, why does Florida continue to punish former felons long after they paid their dues to society? Our state is one of four that don't automatically restore voting rights to those who fulfilled their sentences. Our current clemency system, which gives the decision power to the governor and Cabinet, is broken and arbitrary.

Why: Florida is an outlier in this realm. It's one of four states that doesn't automatically restore voting rights to those who have completed their sentences. Our state as a whole benefits when citizens who have completed their sentences can become productive members of society — and that includes voting. Moreover, Florida's current clemency system, which gives full power to the governor and Cabinet, is broken and arbitrary.

Naples Daily News: YES

Why: By approving Amendment 4, voters can tell state leaders that nonviolent felons deserve another chance once they’ve finished their sentences, including time on probation or parole.

The offenders who would be eligible committed nonviolent felonies. That’s an important distinction because it excludes felons convicted of sex-related crimes or murder. By approving Amendment 4 — let Florida leaders know the state’s clemency process isn’t acceptable.

Why: This isn't a vote against ex-felons who have served their sentence for certain crimes, including parole and probation, and want their voting rights restored. We believe the Legislature should be addressing this issue and giving those rights back to felons who have earned their way back and deserve to vote.

Currently, former felons must wait at least 5 years after completing their sentences to ask the Florida Clemency Board, made up by the governor and the Cabinet, to restore their rights.

If passed, Amendment 4 impacts 1.5 million Floridians.

CLOSE

With many amendments on the November 2018 ballot in Florida, we break down the ones that involve taxes.
Fort Myers News-Press

Amendment 5

This amendment would require a two-thirds vote in the Florida House and Senate — instead of a simple majority — to raise taxes. It was placed on the ballot by the Legislature with the intent to make it more difficult for lawmakers to raise taxes.

This amendment does not apply to local taxes that might be raised in specific counties, cities or other taxing districts, such as school or fire districts. The amendment also stops a typical legislative technique of adding tax and fee increases onto other legislative bills.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: So how did we decide what to recommend? We stuck ruthlessly with a basic test: The proposal has to be more than just a good idea. It has to be worthy of a place in Florida’s Constitution — our central governing document — which means it must deal with fundamental rights. We say leave it.

FLORIDA TODAY: NO

Why: It allows the minority to kill a proposal, awarding a few lawmakers power over the entire 160-member Legislature. If we face another economic downturn and need to reverse some of the tax cuts enacted during the recovery, this measure would make it almost impossible.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: It would allow the minority to kill a proposal, awarding a relatively small number of lawmakers power over the entire 160-member Legislature.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: Amendment 5 would require a two-thirds vote in both the Florida House and Senate to raise taxes or fees, not just a majority. This historically hasn’t been an issue so arguably it’s an amendment put on a crowded ballot by state lawmakers in an election year.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: This amendment does not have enough teeth. The reason: your counties and cities, as well as school districts and other special districts, control most of your tax dollars. The amendment also stops a typical legislative technique of adding tax and fee increases onto other legislative bills, but the House and Senate are usually creative enough to find ways to add those fees.

How does the Constitution Revision Commission bundle several issues into each amendment? Here is how.
TCPALM

Amendment 6

This bundled amendment includes three separate proposals:

• Expands the scope of victims' rights under the Florida Constitution, including victims' rights to due process, under what's known as Marsy's Law;

• Raises the mandatory retirement age of Florida judges from 70 to 75;

• Prohibits state courts from deferring to an administrative agency's interpretation of a state statute or rule.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: Improving victims’ rights as part of Amendment 6 deserved individual consideration. But the Constitution Revision Commission linked a mandatory retirement age for judges and a legal procedural process with victims’ rights into the three-subject Amendment 6. We say leave it.

FLORIDA TODAY: NO

Why: These proposals are vastly different and have far-reaching consequences that should be addressed separately. The Constitution Revision Commission apparently used Marsy's Law, which has its merits, to lure voters to support Amendment 6's more obscure proposals.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: Our editorial board is philosophically opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of "bundling" unrelated amendments on the ballot. These proposals are vastly different and have far-reaching consequences that voters should be allowed to consider separately.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: The state’s constitution shouldn’t be loaded down with bundled amendments that strain logic to figure out why the proposals are related. Voters have the right to reject any bundled amendment.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: In order to approve the best part of this amendment – how it expands victims rights – you must also agree to raising the mandatory retirement age for Florida judges from 70 to 75 and agree to prohibit state courts from accepting a certain agency's interpretation of a state statue or rule. Without the age change and courts ability to act on certain interpretations, the bill could make sense. With them, it does not.

Amendment 7

Includes three separate proposals:

• Requires mandatory payment of death benefits and waives some educational expenses to qualifying survivors of first responders and military members who die performing official duties, which is already in state law (and adds paramedics and emergency medical technicians to the list);

• Requires supermajority votes by university trustees and state university system boards of governors to raise or impose fees;

• Establishes the existing Florida College System as a constitutional entity.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: The rest of the amendments [including 7] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions.

FLORIDA TODAY: NO

Why: The CRC bundled three unrelated proposals. While making it harder for university to raise tuition may sound like a good idea, it also preempts universities' ability to pay and offer more services when they are strapped for cash. A bill in the Legislature would achieve the same purpose.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: The Constitution Revision Commission bundled three different proposals. We are philosophically opposed to asking voters to cast a single vote for multiple changes to the state constitution.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: Three-part Amendment 7 addresses death benefits for first responders and military personnel, while also covering the voting requirements for regulators of state universities.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: This amendment runs the gamut of the absurd. A part of it expands the protection of benefits and educational expenses for survivors of certain first responders and military members who die performing official duties. Than the amendment goes off the rails. It also includes requiring super majority votes by university trustees and state university system board of governors to raise or impose legislatively authorized fees if law requires approval by those bodies. It also calls for a minor change in the Constitution, recognizing colleges in the state college system, which are no referred to as community colleges in the Constitution.

Amendment 9

This is a Florida Constitution Revision Commission proposal that bundles two measures under the auspices of clean water and clean air.

• The waters most immediately adjacent to Florida’s coastline are in state control, then become federal jurisdiction farther offshore. This amendment pertains just to state-controlled water, prohibiting oil and gas drilling for exploration or extraction in offshore areas. It doesn’t block transport of oil or gas from federal territorial waters through state waters to Florida’s ports.

• The second part of the amendment prohibits the indoor use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. The amendment doesn’t restrict use of these devices inside private residences (unless they’re used for child or health care) nor in standalone bars or hotel rooms where smoking is allowed.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: The panel connected the prohibition of vaping in the workplace to offshore drilling in Amendment 9, a strained effort to connect clean air and clean water. Does a vaping ban belong in Florida’s Constitution? We say no.

FLORIDA TODAY: YES

Why: While we disagree with bundling different proposals together, Florida's economy relies on keeping our coastal waters healthy. Smoking indoors is already banned, so it makes sense ban to e-cigarettes as well.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: Again, the Constitution Revision Commission bundled three different proposals. We are philosophically opposed to asking voters to cast a single vote for multiple changes to the state constitution.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: Another worthwhile idea that fits within the preamble is forbidding oil and gas drilling in state territorial waters, a part of Amendment 9. If only the constitution revision commission had stopped there. Instead, the panel connected the prohibition of vaping in the workplace to offshore drilling in Amendment 9, a strained effort to connect clean air and clean water. There are far more effective ways to protect water and air quality that could have been combined with offshore drilling than vaping. How long into the future will vaping go up in smoke? Yet a fad is supposed to be addressed in the state’s constitution that should stand the test of time?

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: This CRC amendment has a tremendous environmental component, banning oil and gas drilling in state-controlled, offshore waters. It doesn’t block transport of oil or gas from federal territorial waters through state waters to Florida’s ports. Then the amendment turns to absurd, prohibiting the indoor use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. Vaping should not be part of this amendment and should be regulated by the Legislature. Because of vaping, this amendment should not pass.

Amendment 10

This is a Constitution Revision Commission proposal that rolls four separate government regulatory proposals into one amendment that would:

• Require the Legislature to start its annual session in January instead of March during even-numbered years. That’s because these are election years; an earlier start means lawmakers can finish before May.

• Create a counter-terrorism and security office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

• Require the state to have a Department of Veterans Affairs, which already exists.

• Require that all 67 counties must elect their sheriff, tax collector, elections supervisor and clerk of courts. Several Florida counties now have at least one of these positions appointed based on home-rule charters, such as Miami-Dade County, whose top law enforcer is appointed, not elected.

This amendment was legally challenged but the Florida Supreme Court left it on the ballot in an early September ruling.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

Why: Some amendments — including Amendment 10 — are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with: unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions.

FLORIDA TODAY: NO

Why: The bundling of these proposals is ridiculous. Amendment 10 infringes on the home rule of counties that choose to appoint their officials.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: The bundling of these unrelated proposals is ridiculous. Additionally, Amendment 10 infringes on the home rule of counties that choose to appoint their officials.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: The 2018 Florida Constitution Revision Commission lost its way in crafting six multiple topic amendments, referred to as bundling. Those defending the panel’s bundling decision say it has the right to present mishmash amendments to voters. Granted. By the same token, however, voters have the right to reject any bundled amendment. That’s exactly what they should do Nov. 6 with “no” votes on the five remaining bundled amendments, including Amendment 10.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: Don't be deceived by this crowded amendment. One proposal — calling for all 67 counties to elect their sheriff, tax collector, elections supervisor and clerk of courts — is strictly a battle for those counties that don't elect those officers, not most of the state. Two other bundled items also are weak attempts to muddy the system. The legislative session proposal is only an attempt to allow lawmakers to get out and campaign sooner. That's not good government. Another proposal also aims to create a counter-terrorism and security office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Most law enforcement agencies already have versions of this. The item requires the state to have a Department of Veterans Affairs, which already exists.

CLOSE

Florida voters approved Amendment 11 which cleans up a lot of language in the state constitution.
Rob Landers, FLORIDA TODAY

Amendment 11

This amendment has three parts:

• Florida’s Constitution currently has language that allows the Legislature to prevent non-citizens from buying, selling, owning or inheriting property. Amendment 11 would delete this language.

• Florida’s Constitution added the “Savings Clause” in 1885 and is one of only three states that enforces one. This clause forbids making changes to criminal sentencing laws retroactive. For example, if the Legislature changes a mandatory minimum sentence for an offense from 20 years to five years, anyone still being prosecuted for or already convicted of that offense would still have to serve 20 years. Amendment 11 repeals the Savings Clause.

• Deletes language approving a high-speed rail. Floridians voted down the high-speed rail project in 2004, but the language was never removed.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: YES

Why: Amendment 11 is a good clean-up proposal, repealing some unnecessary or unenforceable facets of existing law. It is one of those mash-ups the Constitution Revision Commission threw against the wall, but all three pieces are worthy of approval.

FLORIDA TODAY: YES

Why: The first two proposals bring the Constitution up to date as the citizenship provision isn't enforced (critics say it was enacted in the early 20th century to target Asian immigrants) and Floridians voted against high-speed rail in 2004. Repealing the Savings Clause ensures that people who committed a crime at different times serve equal sentences if the laws change. Amendment 10 supporters say it will help usher much-needed criminal justice reform, in particular when the Legislature reduces sentences for drug offenses.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: While these three proposals are reasonable on their own — each represents a sensible "cleaning up" of constitutional language — we are opposed to the Constitution Revision Commission's practice of bundling them into one amendment.

Naples Daily News: NO

Why: The 2018 Florida Constitution Revision Commission lost its way in crafting six multiple topic amendments, referred to as bundling. Those defending the panel’s bundling decision say it has the right to present mishmash amendments to voters. Granted. By the same token, however, voters have the right to reject any bundled amendment. That’s exactly what they should do Nov. 6 with “no” votes on the five remaining bundled amendments, including Amendment 11.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: This is another amendment that will confuse voters because of its many moving parts on deletions and repeals of constitutional items. Most of what is in this bundled amendment should not be constitutional issues in the first place.

Amendment 12

It expands ethics rules for public officials — both elected officials and government employees, including judges.

The new rules are complex, but essentially they ban officials/employees from lobbying the state and federal government during their terms of office/employment and for 6 years after (currently the rule is 2 years).

Amendment 12 also prohibits these officials from using their position for private gain.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

FLORIDA TODAY: NO

Why: We support a lobbying ban but six years is too far reaching, especially for government employees. It might prevent good candidates from running for office.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: While we support enhanced ethics rules for public officials, we have concerns about enshrining such specific limits in the state's governing document. That would make them more difficult to adjust in the future. These rules should be addressed transparently by the state Legislature.

Naples Daily News: YES

Why: Strong ethics rules and enforcement are principles of good governance, so we recommend support of Florida constitutional Amendment 12. Placed on the ballot by the Constitution Revision Commission, a “yes” vote on Amendment 12 would prohibit a public official — whether elected or an employee — from getting paid for lobbying while serving in office and for six years afterward. Currently, there is a two-year prohibition after leaving the government payroll. This amendment alone won’t clean up all that can be addressed to improve government ethics in the state. Campaign finance reform to control the influence of money on political campaigns and the meting out of harsher, quicker and more frequent penalties by the Florida Ethics Commission also would help.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: It expands ethics rules for public officials, banning those who are officials/employees from lobbying the state and federal government during their terms of office and for six years after they leave office. The current rule is two years. Officials are not allowed to use their office for private gain and the Legislature should be cracking down on those who do through laws it already has.

Amendment 13

The proposal ends commercial greyhound and other dog racing by 2020, but people in Florida would continue to wager on races occurring in other states.

Forty states ban the activity and Florida, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa and Texas are the only ones where dog racing is legal and operational.

Racing has been dying, but Florida law requires tracks to race dogs in order to keep their license to offer more profitable card games and slot machines, which they still would be able to offer if Amendment 13 is approved.

Pensacola News Journal: No stance

Tallahassee Democrat: NO

FLORIDA TODAY: YES

Why: This issue would be best addressed by the Legislature but lobbying by track owners has prevented lawmakers from enacting laws to address the high number of positive drug tests, including for cocaine, greyhound deaths and injuries. More than 400 dogs have died at state tracks since Florida began counting in 2013.

TCPalm and Treasure Coast Newspapers: NO

Why: This issue should be addressed by the Legislature, not in the state's primary governing document.

Naples Daily News: YES

Why: We recommend approval of the amendment based on two principles: the state shouldn’t force a business to operate in ways that have proven unprofitable, and animals should be treated humanely. Animal welfare organizations have produced convincing data that too many dogs bred for racing are drugged, injured or dying. Why? So track operators can be forced to lose money running races that have lost popularity with a dog-loving public? Animal welfare organizations have assured us there is a network to transition these docile greyhounds into loving homes across the nation. The phase-out date gives the state time to make sure alternative job training is provided to workers who will lose jobs when racing ends. Track operators won’t be forced to lose money. Dogs get loving homes. Florida has tens of thousands of unfilled jobs today for those who no longer can do this line of work. A yes vote on Amendment 13 makes overwhelming sense.

Fort Myers News-Press: NO

Why: The proposal ends commercial dog racing by 2020, but those who bet could still wager on races occurring in other states. Forty states already ban the activity and we support animal rights groups who want to protect the dogs where accidents, death and drugging are a part of the sport. Dog racing is dying in the state and soon, because of pressure from groups, other laws will be changed to discontinue it and allow tracks, like the one in Bonita Springs, to be profitable through card games, slots and other gaming.

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Brevard decides! For the 2018 general election, early voting is from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekends of Oct. 27-Nov. 3. Election Day is from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Nov. 6. Here are the candidates in Brevard County and the statewide races. narvikk, Getty Images/iStockphoto